GC Horizons
GC Horizons, Garden Court’s latest project was before the Plymouth Plan Commission last week. There were a lot of people there to speak on both sides. Jamie Fluery did a nice job on an article in the Pilot News that went through a lot of it before the meeting. The drawing from the paper shows the concept plan. Along with the new apartment complex, the City of Plymouth will sponsor some single family homes.
There was a lot of Vitriol spent attacking Garden Court and the potential tenants for these units. Sister Connie spoke in favor of the project and was shouted down at the end. After the meeting she commented, “People look at these things with compassion or fear. Tonight there were a lot of people speaking from a place of fear.”
The proposed zoning change recommendation that was before the Plan Commission passed. That puts the issue before the Common Council this evening and there has been a lot of pressure put on the Common Council Members. I hope they are able to see that the few speaking out don’t represent the majority, but I know it’s hard when you’re being attacked for doing the right thing. Below are three positive letters that were sent to the Common Council stating the case better than I could. I thought it was important to include them here:
From Linda Yoder, Marshall County United Way:
Good afternoon, Plymouth City Council Members,
Thank you for your consideration of the Garden Court Horizons Project. Last week, United Way hosted a review of preliminary findings from the Housing Gap Analysis launched in February 2024.
For those that were unable to attend, attached is a copy of the presentation slides and, for your convenience, a summary of key findings.
Based on data included in the study, your favorable consideration of the rezoning and annexation request on Monday would:
- Address a projected housing shortage of 1300 units
- Focus on the largest housing need today which is rental units
(Due to multiple factors: high interest rates, high cost of construction making home ownership unattainable for many and a higher than normal % of population under 30)
In addition, a favorable vote will:
- Bring $13 million in investment for a mix of 28 low/moderate (affordable) rental units and 8 permanent supportive housing units
- Set the stage for a potential READI grant proposal to develop an additional 13 single family housing units for even more state investment in housing shortages
The 2019 Marshall County Stellar Designation opened this door to capture additional state funding through the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority to address a critical housing shortage.
Michael Fortunato, the Housing Gap Analysis Consultant, shared this summary:
The combined effects of a) a large, young renter class emerging, b) another large generation aging in place and therefore locking in the housing supply, and c) suppressed education levels that translate to lower wages overall would create a housing crisis anywhere.
Marshall County’s greatest assets are a) a county working together to be proactive around these issues, and b) a housing supply (with some vacancy) that is still not as constrained as some other neighboring counties.
Those that attended the IHCDA Housing Institute and serving as team members includes:
Bowen Center: Zach Cook
Bradley Company: Rod Ludwig, Alonda Jenkins
- City of Plymouth: Sean Surrisi
- Easterday Construction: Kevin Berger
- Garden Court: John Myers
- SRKM Architecture: Brent Martin, Jeff Kumfer
- United Way of Marshall County: Linda Yoder
Additional advocates invited to the team are Jack Davis and Eric Holsopple.
We would be glad to talk with you to answer questions or provide additional information. You can contact me any time (evenings and weekends included).
Best regards,
Linda
####################
From Brent Martin, SRKM Architecture:
Dear Council Members,
As members of the Garden Court team know, I have been reluctant to reach out to plan commissioners or city council members regarding this most recent Garden Court project. I am self-aware enough to know invective is thrown my way as my career as an architect is designing buildings. At the same time, my history with Garden Court goes back over 33 years. Longer now, I think, than anyone else on the team. I guess that makes me “the old man”. Given that, if you’ll allow a bit of a ramble, here’s some perspective.
Mayor Glaub was instrumental in creating Garden Court in the early 1970s. I’ve been told he did so as his elderly mother could no longer take care of her home, wanted to remain in Plymouth, and had nowhere to go. So, the founding of Garden Court was based on providing housing for low-income seniors.
The first projects, Garden Court East & West, were funded by USDA Rural Development, back then called the Farmer’s Home Administration. A bit of history:
During the Great Depression, rural Americans needed the power of electricity that had been established in urban areas. Unfortunately, providing electricity to rural places was cost prohibitive and up to 90% of farmers were not able to access electricity because existing distributors would not build lines to their farms. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order to create the Rural Electrification Administration.
My Dad remembered when electrical power came to his Mom & Dad’s farm. He told me the deal was the farmers had to get together and set the poles and the REMC would then string the wire and bring in the service, but I digress……..
In 1984-5 Garden Court was approved for what’s called a HUD 202 project for low-income elderly and adults with disabilities of any age. That project is Garden Court downtown, the three-story building on Garro Street.
Then, in 1986 some crazy young architect moved to Plymouth and in 1991 was hired by Garden Court to design what is now known as Neidlinger Garden Court. The Garden Court board was not happy with a three-story building for seniors (no surprise there) and so I was directed to design a single-story building. However, the three-story design was the “HUD Model” and a real donnybrook ensued. (Long and occasionally humorous story there, best told over a beer). As you can see, Garden Court prevailed.
The Rev. Dr. Ronald Liechty was President of Garden Court by this time. He, along with Dean Byers, had the vision of building a Garden Court in every community in Marshall County. A development team of Ron, Dean, Bob Toothaker (Real Estate Management), Scott Huges (Hughes Associates Grant Administrators), and myself was formed to go after funding.
And we were highly successful without much fanfare getting projects funded in Argos, Bourbon, Lapaz, and Culver, along with Knox in Starke County and Mentone in Kosciusko County. While all this was going on we were also successful in funding Fairfield Garden Court and Hurford House Garden Court. You may notice Bremen is not mentioned. That’s because Bremen has a similar 202 project developed by a different non-profit. I would wager Marshall County may be the only county in the state with a facility in each community. That’s something to be proud of.
There is a part of me nostalgic for those development team meetings. The good conversations, the not-so-good coffee, and the real friendships that developed over time. 2024 isn’t 1995, that’s for sure. Not worse, just different. Rev. Liechty is deceased, Bob Toothaker retired, Scott Hughes pretty much out of the grant administration game, but Dean Byers, at 80 years old, is still going strong with Habitat and soon to be our next county coroner!
Since those days, Real Estate Management Corp. is now Bradly Company and has grown to a very large group based in Indianapolis with property management, real estate, and development portfolios. Plymouth is very fortunate Rod Ludwig, a hometown person, is the managing director of multi-family housing for Bradley.
I would be remiss if I did not note over the past 50 years federal agencies have changed the rules for both the development of, and the management of, these properties. And, depending on the funding source, the requirements vary. It’s the nature of bureaucracy. “Use our money, play by our rules.”
You may ask why Garden Court hasn’t expanded low-income senior housing recently? About 15-20 years ago HUD moved the decision making from Indianapolis to Chicago. I’m sure you can deduce where the funding goes now. Garden Court is consistently asking “where is the need?’ And, over the last 4-5 years, they determined there is tremendous need for the housing insecure.
And Garden Court continues to thrive and serve low-income persons, winning awards for excellence and most recently voted Favorite Apartment Complex 4 years running.
Kindly forgive my rambling history, but context and history are important.
As to the current project, here are a few things I’ll mention.
I’ve heard it said Garden Court could sell off this property or develop the whole thing as multi-family. After a 50-year legacy of doing precisely what was proposed for each project, this all volunteer, local non-profit is not going to pull a “fast one”. To say otherwise, ignores reality. Should the tax credit application be successful, we have an understanding with the City to donate the single-family property which becomes part of the match for the City’s proposed READI 2.0 single family housing grant. If not successful, the option to purchase expires.
I have also heard about traffic and of course this project won’t add a whit to issues with school pick up and drop off traffic as the elementary children living there are certainly going to walk to school. I am pleased sidewalks on Lemler to Michigan are planned in the coming year.
The Plan Commission tenders this petition to you with a favorable recommendation after a lengthy public hearing and your plan consultant recommended approval. Those recommendations should carry great weight as these are the people you appointed to make dispassionate decisions removed from political office. They reviewed the request, heard the comments, and then decided. (I’m sure you’ve also heard plenty of comments that aren’t fit to be in the public domain). And your recently adopted comprehensive plan says this:
1)COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City of Plymouth’s Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable, adopted planning studies or reports; The new Comprehensive Plan identifies this area to be a Traditional Neighborhood. The traditional neighborhood character area reflects Plymouth’s vision of diverse and inclusive community. This locale offers a range of housing options and living arrangements that cater to every stage of life, all while preserving the historical essence of residential neighborhoods. In this area, you’ll find a harmonious blend of smaller lot single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes like townhomes, apartments, and the versatile option for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The architectural theme aligns with that of the Transitional Mixed-Use area, where homes stand closer to the street, with cozy front yards.
(from the plan consultant’s report)
In other words, the project is a precise fit to your new comprehensive plan, full stop. Note your plan doesn’t speak to who may reside in any of the mentioned uses. To do so, would be inappropriate at the very least.
I’m also sure you’ve seen Mr. Fortunato’s report on housing and the identified need, crisis really, at the bottom of the demographic ladder. I’m not going to repeat that study, simply encourage you to read it.
And of course, the Economy Inn and Red Rock have become conflated with the Garden Court project. Other than the possibility that a small number of the residents may qualify to move to this new project after going through the coordinated entry process, there’s no connection. None. Having said that, I’d encourage you to accompany Sister Connie or Jack Davis when they deliver food. I suspect you will be surprised to find the vast majority of the residents living there are good people.
Does Plymouth have too much low-income housing? A per capita comparison with Columbia City and Logansport says no. Will property values decrease? Studies in both Kokomo and Plymouth refute that assertion. Garden Court can only meet the need. To deny the need is just not supported by the facts.
Much of the vitriol is driven by fear, although generally people are loath to admit it. All I can say to that is I’ve completed about 25 low-income housing projects over the years, mostly in residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. Some controversial, some not so much. One of the comments I’ve heard from opponents after the project is up and running a few years is often: “I didn’t know it would be like that.”
I understand how difficult a vote can be when you’re being hammered by constituents. Keep in mind the loudest voices are not necessarily reflective of what is best for your community, nor the majority of your community for that matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the facts matter. I have always believed an elected official should carefully consider what is in the best interests of their community as a whole and then vote that belief.
Thanks so much for your time reading my somewhat rambling thoughts. I urge you to weigh carefully the recommendation before you and evaluate the veracity of comments both for and against this project. I will make myself available this weekend if you wish to contact me.
Brent
####################
From Gary Neidig, ITAMCO
Dear Plymouth City Council Members,
Our community is experiencing a dilemma. Everyone is concerned. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone wants something done. Everyone knows the need is real.
However, we all have a “not in my back yard” concern when it comes to something that is different than what we are accustomed to in our neighborhood.
I have a personal story that speaks to this subject.
A few years ago, I was made aware of a variance being requested for a home in our neighborhood across the street from my home. It was being requested by Pathfinders to open a Group Home.
Some of my neighbors, and myself were not pleased with that possibility, and began to investigate what could be done. After some investigation, we then discovered that there was already a Pathfinder Group home in our neighborhood, and that I didn’t even know about it. The variance was granted, and there have been no problems with the tenants. In fact, the house has been well maintained, and there have been no negative incidences that would have warranted the concerns we had.
I realize that this is a different demographic, organization, and project. However, Garden Court, and Bradley Company have done an outstanding job to vet residents, and to maintain a proper and safe environment.
The affordable housing crisis is a problem for all of us. Allowing the two former motels on the North side to be the nexus for aggregating citizens that are working but lack the resources to get a down payment, or security deposit is not the answer. This is now giving the appearance of a magnet, and is not indicative of what Plymouth has to offer.
Distributed projects like the Garden Court Horizons project are not the final answer, but it is a step in the right direction. If we can work together to create a strategy of helping people that are doing their best to succeed, then our whole community will benefit.
Duane, Don, Shiloh, Randy, Linda, Kayla, Dave, I’ve known you all for many years. You have caring hearts, and you want what is best for our community. We’ve witnessed together our community grow, and have seen improvements in so many areas. Let’s start the process of reducing the blight on the North side by allowing Garden Court to build this project.
Please vote yes for this zoning request.
Gary L. Neidig
President
ITAMCO
6100 Michigan Road
Plymouth, IN 46563.
O: 574.936.2112 D: 574.935.6903
glneidig@itamco.com
“Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.”
Psalm 19:14 KJV
LaPaz Commons Ribbon Cutting
On Thursday, May 23rd, we had the Ribbon Cutting for Riverside Commons Apartments in Plymouth and LaPaz Commons Apartments in LaPaz. This project resulted from Marshall County Crossroads‘ Stellar Designation.
In LaPaz, Matthew Celmer spoke on behalf of the Crossroads committee. Gary Neidig spoke on behalf of One Marshall County, the new reiteration of Crossroads. Roger Ecker, LaPaz Town Council President, spoke on behalf of the Town of LaPaz. Alan Rakowski, Director of Real Estate Acquisition, for IHCDA spoke as well. It was also nice to see Council member, Ryan Young; Clerk Treasurer, Jenn Gilmer; Former Clerk Treasurer, Lorraine Dove; and some of the town employees there as well. All of them praised the new development and the what it would do for the Town of LaPaz. (Marty Oosterbaan was there as a former Crossroads’ leader. He was also responsible for a lot of help in pulling the Ribbon Cutting together.) Thanks also to Easterday Construction Co., Inc. Project Superintendent, Bob Cooper, and Office Manager, Julie Heise for their help throughout the project and at the Ribbon Cutting. Thank you to Gavin Greer for his coverage in the Pilot News on May 29th.
When we have a project like this, I try and attend all of the local town council meetings. I hit most of them and the council made me a standing agenda item. My time there helped me understand the struggles LaPaz is going through and the good people that are involved in the town’s government, contributing their efforts. This made it all the more significant that LaPaz stepped up to help make this project happen, understanding their tight budget. LaPaz punched above their weight, providing more assistance than we received for Riverside Commons in Plymouth and for The Paddocks in Culver.
The LaPaz Council helped find a suitable site and made initial contacts with the owner. They also obtained an appraisal for the property.
The site required a variance. LaPaz Council President, Roger Ecker, appeared with us before the Marshall County BZA and spoke in favor of the variance request. (That was a late night and much appreciated!)
Troyer Street was not much more than a cow path before this project. The town provided and installed stone where the “street” had become a mud hole. Later, the town was able to grade and stone the remainder of the street in-house and then applied for Community Crossings funds to pave it and provide storm water infrastructure. This didn’t just benefit LaPaz Commons, but since these improvements, there has been steady traffic from the other apartments to the east. This was a great improvement for LaPaz.
LaPaz also waived tap fees for the sewer hook-up. A small thing, but helpful to project costs.
And as a final gesture of support, the LaPaz Council provided a picnic lunch at the Ribbon Cutting. That was a touching gesture!
LaPaz and Plymouth were the only communities that stepped up to the challenge for this project. We approached Argos, Bremen and Bourbon (Culver was not eligible), but they either did not have a site available or wanted terms that didn’t fit the IHCDA application. It took courage and a lot of effort for LaPaz to do this and they should be commended. As Alan Rakowski from IHCDA stated in his speech, including LaPaz strengthened the overall application and probably made the difference in it being awarded. I also think that including these projects made a difference in Marshall County Crossroads receiving the Stellar designation and all the ancillary that came from that.
LaPaz Commons is an eight unit townhome project. There are 6 townhouse units and two ADA accessible flats. All of the units are ADA visitable. Before we were even done with construction, there were 10 applications for the units and at the Ribbon Cutting, there were four units filled. This is the first new housing in LaPaz since we did the LaPaz Garden Court senior housing in 2010.
LaPaz has suffered with the Highway 31 bypass literally bypassing them. They are working hard to keep their community thriving, using the limited resources which they have. We are happy that we could make a dent in this and provide some much needed housing. Fingers crossed that this helps kickstart some other positive additions for LaPaz!
Riverside Commons Apartments Ribbon Cutting
Riverside Commons Apartments is a scattered site RHTC project. There are 40 units in Plymouth, Riverside commons, at 981 Richter Road (NW corner of Richter Rd and Baker St.) and 8 units in LaPaz, LaPaz Commons at 67 Troyer Street (SE corner of Michigan Rd and Troyer St.).
The Dunes Work Session
There was a work session held Wednesday evening, 5/15/24, to discuss The Dunes project. This was a combined session with the Culver Town Council, Plan Commission and Redevelopment Commission in attendance. Despite being advertised as a work session, they did allow limited questions from the public in attendance. I am not sure how many were watching via Teams, but there were only 7 “public” in the room.
I attended just to listen. As I have said before, I am generally in favor of this project, but The Devil is in the Details. This is the third project of this type, one of two that has regional matching dollars, that has been come up for the Town in the last 10 years. It’s been interesting to see how these things have morphed over time. Since the meeting, I have been approached by several people, some on opposite sides of the issue, for my thoughts on the meeting. I thought I would include some of my responses to them here.
The meeting was ostensibly to hear the Town’s Engineering Firm, Midwest Engineers, Inc., give their assessment of the drainage plans. Some of what was presented was by the developer’s attorney though, so there may have been some honest miscommunication. That said, it wasn’t corrected by the engineer. As a disclaimer here, I have not seen the drainage study, final plat, or construction plans, so I can only speak to what was presented.
Thoughts on the drainage:
- There was a question from a plan commission member concerning the adjacent wetlands behind the water treatment plant which currently comes up into adjacent property owners’ yards during heavy rains. The response was that there would be no increase in water volume entering the wetlands, but that it would enter faster. There would be an overflow established for the wetlands routing the water somewhere (town storm drains?). This is one of those where I wonder if there was a misstatement, as the general design of a detention basin is to detain the water and slowly release it at a rate no faster than predevelopment. Flushing the wetlands with a rapid release and an overflow to the storm drain could well be detrimental. This wetland is directly adjacent to the town’s well field, so its health is important. Also, this seems counter to town’s storm water requirements which state, “It is the responsibility of each land owner to insure that any portion of precipitation from such sources as rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water that flows over the ground surface be contained within their lot or channeled to an appropriate storm sewer, ditch, or stream.” – Chapter 6, Section 250, page 115. This is tricky. It’s important the the wetlands still receives the pre-development runoff (contrary to the ordinance), but does not get flushed with a rapid release of runoff.
- There was a discussion about making the pond deeper. Deeper will increase the volume held, but won’t necessarily increase the rate of absorption, which they stated they are counting on. The depth in comparison to the wetlands is important and the plantings and maintenance of this detention pond is critical, else the bottom seal and no longer provide absorption. I trust that Midwestern Engineers is considering the possibility of multiple 100 yr storms and the possibility of 500 year storms, since their occurrence is a possibility.
- There were questions about the start of earthwork before Culver approvals. It was stated that they didn’t require any Culver approvals and they had the State approvals required for this work. It wasn’t clear if they had obtained an erosion control permit from Culver. I believe that should have been required and applied where it might be stricter than the State. – Chapter 6, Section 050, H, page 87
- There was discussion of possibly adding large drywells. Drywells are generally pervious vessels such as manholes, vaults and oversized pipes which detain some of the water and allow for absorption into the surrounding soil. They work well when they are maintained, but cease to work if they are allowed to clog. They only work in suitable soils. The addition of drywells would move this maintenance from the HOA (responsible for the detention pond) to the town, as they would become part of the built storm system, dedicated to the town with the streets. A potential alternate solution would be the creation of small drywells associated with the downspouts on buildings and the creation of rain gardens and/or bioswales to slow water flow and increase absorption.
Thoughts on size:
- There was audience pushback on the size of the development. The concern being that the addition of “300 doors” (the developer’s term), will cause traffic problems, tax the municipal systems and generally be disruptive to Culver as we know it. I tend to trust the numbers provide by town officials on this. We have been assured that the sewer and water capacity is not only adequate, but there will remain excess capacity for other future projects. Town officials have also cited demographic numbers showing that if all of these new units are filled with fulltime residents, that will only bring our number of fulltime residents back to the mix of the 1980’s. I am most interested in the utility capacity, as I would hate to see us with limited capacity if something comes up we really want. As mentioned in this post, Culver Meadows is still hanging out there as well.
- There was audience pushback on the the “surprise” involved with this development. The land involved was annexed in the 2010’s to promote its development. The R-2 zoning district was rewritten in the 2010’s to allow greater density. Finding ways to add housing to Culver has been a goal for decades at this point. It’s hard to justify the pushback when it’s been in the plans for that long and came up again as a major goal in the current comprehensive plan. There is some question of the development size. It was stated as 60 acres in the meeting, but the parcels on the GIS add up to 65 acres. (Are the roads being discounted?) Either way, worst case scenario, if all 300 doors were counted as single family residences, then 300 units x 7,500 sf (from R-2 Lot area chart) = 51.65 acres. They are well under the density allowed. The only question here is the division of lots and whether each of the proposed lots stays below the density standard. I am guessing they’re safe on this.
Thoughts on traffic:
- There were audience concerns about the added traffic in the downtown and the desire to reroute this development’s traffic out of town. I was pleased to hear that the downtown merchants had been surveyed and they were in favor of the additional traffic downtown. They see this as a benefit to them. As I previously wrote in this post, I think development around the perimeter of Culver should be directed in and efforts should be made to make new residents part of the community, rather than creating our small version of Suburban Sprawl.
- The financing was discussed and the additional funds coming to Culver through the TIF can be used to address infrastructure issues that may come up from this. This is one I do take some exception to. I am not privy to current plans and negotiations, but I am concerned that street improvements may require additional right-of-ways as discussed in this post. Even if these aren’t required for The Dunes, there was discussion of the development occurring further south on Tamarack Road and 19th Road. If this is an area of expansion, provisions for improvements should be obtained from this developer now. There would be little effect on their project, but could make a huge difference in addressing future needs. I fully understand the town’s position, i.e. they don’t know what might be needed until the problems arise, but having additional right-of-way now would prevent eminent domain problems in the future. As discussed in multiple comprehensive plan meetings, municipalities need to do their best to plan for 50 to 100 years from now and not do things that can’t be easily rectified in the future.
- Under things not discussed, but I thought should have been… I still have concerns that the new street across South Main Street from Tampa Street does not line up with Tampa Street. I think this is creating a dangerous intersection. I also think this is the time to address the Davis Street/South Main Street intersection. On that issue, there is scuttlebutt that a possible solution is to end Ohio Street as a cul-de-sac. That should be part of this discussion now, as well.
Thoughts on costs:
- There were questions on what this will cost Culver Taxpayers. I trust the town officials that they have negotiated this so there are no out of pocket costs to the current taxpayers and that the additional captured tax funds will be adequate to fix any problems and provide excess for other things beneficial to Culver. My only concern here is whether that will be burnt up addressing the infrastructure issues posed above.
- Under things not discussed, but I thought should have been… In the previous development agreements mentioned above, there were more requirements put on the developer. When Culver put money toward the street construction, the naming of the street was by the town, not the developer. The other two agreements included requirements for part of the developments to have housing cost controls. The Dunes developer is receiving $1.3MM in READI funds as well as TIF bond funds from the Town. The Dunes developer has been very upfront in meetings that this project is not affordable housing. It is market rate housing. While the town (rightly in my opinion) believes that additional housing availability should have the effect of lowering overall housing costs, there is a question as to whether the developer will proceed with later phases of this development if that happens. If increased capacity lowers demand, the premium available for new housing may be lower as well. I do not foresee this, but it should be part of the discussion. Lowering housing costs is a double edged sword for current residents as well. While many of them balk at the tax increases associated with the rise in assessed value, they are pleased with the appreciation in value when they sell.
These are the main points and I think I will leave it here. If something else comes up, that I think should be mentioned, I may make some edits.
An Odd Juxtaposition this Week
May 29, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Marshall County, Plymouth, projects, Stellar, Tips
Affordable Housing, Community, Entry Level Housing, government, Multi-family, Stellar Region, Trends, Workforce Housing
On Thursday we had the Ribbon Cutting for Riverside Commons Apartments in Plymouth and LaPaz Commons Apartments in LaPaz. This project resulted from Marshall County Crossroads‘ Stellar Designation. Matthew Celmer spoke on behalf of the Crossroads committee. Gary Neidig spoke on behalf of One Marshall County, the new reiteration of Crossroads. Mayor Listenberger spoke on behalf of the City of Plymouth. Alan Rakowski, Director of Real Estate Acquisition, for IHCDA spoke as well. It was also nice to see Don Ecker there representing the Plymouth Common Council, Lynn Gorski, Clerk Treasurer, representing the Plymouth Clerks’ office and Ralph Booker representing the Plymouth Plan Commission. All of them praised the new development and the what it would do for the City of Plymouth. (Marty Oosterbaan was there as a former Crossroads’ leader. He was also responsible for a lot of help in pulling the Ribbon Cutting together.) Thanks also to Easterday Construction Co., Inc. Project Superintendent, Bob Cooper, and Office Manager, Julie Heise for their help throughout the project and at the Ribbon Cutting.
The juxtaposition occurred later that day when a letter began circulating around Plymouth, on Facebook, and in other venues, condemning the Mayor and others such as myself involved with the proposed GC Horizons project – a project very similar to Riverside Commons. That was followed by a negative Letter to the Editor in the Pilot News. It was odd, being praised for doing something good for the community at the Ribbon Cutting and then later the same day, being attacked on Facebook for wanting to do more of the same.
Riverside Commons and the proposed GC Horizons are both IHCDA RHTC (Rental Housing Tax Credit) projects. The only difference is that GC Horizons will include 8 PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing) units similar to those at Serenity Place – 8 of the 34 total units. The “GC” in GC Horizons stands for Garden Court. Garden Count has been a respected not-for-profit entity providing affordable housing to the community for decades. They were also denigrated for attempting to do more good in the community.
While I know it’s unwise to feed the trolls by attempting to rebut their falsehoods online, I thought it worthwhile to present some of the facts here:
There were other specious Facebook comments that were just mean spirited and unworthy of responses. Few of them suggested alternate solutions, though at least one’s solution advocated violence and destruction of property. The negativity is hard to shake off. That said, one thing stood out from the Riverside Commons Ribbon Cutting on Thursday… We had a two story townhouse unit open after the ribbon cutting for guests to tour. Everyone was complimentary. As I was walking out with a couple of guests, there were two women sitting and talking on a neighboring porch. One of the women asked if we liked the unit? She then asked if we would like to see one of the flats, since she lived in a flat. I smiled and thanked her, saying I was familiar since I was part of the construction team. She smiled broadly and proceeded to tell me how happy she was with her new apartment, how she had made new friends there and how there was a sense of community. She ended it saying thank you for making the apartments available to her. She is one of the reasons for doing this and her heartfelt, unsolicited gratitude helps as some of the negativity comes my way.
0 comments